229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
11.00%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of GPRO's 13.65%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
6.54%
Gross profit growth under 50% of GPRO's 26.68%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
86.96%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 69.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
86.96%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 69.02%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
131.58%
Net income growth above 1.5x GPRO's 64.84%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
144.44%
EPS growth above 1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
133.33%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.39%
Share reduction more than 1.5x GPRO's 0.90%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.78%
Diluted share count expanding well above GPRO's 0.90%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
812.50%
OCF growth above 1.5x GPRO's 115.30%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
139.47%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 114.15%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
-48.42%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-17.85%
Negative 5Y CAGR while GPRO stands at 6.97%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-17.21%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
111.76%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-83.15%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-58.29%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
949.21%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-69.06%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GPRO is 69.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-76.63%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
34.18%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
91.70%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-7.18%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
34.86%
AR growth well above GPRO's 8.86%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
47.37%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.81%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.21%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.98%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-7.50%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
5.02%
We expand SG&A while GPRO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.
